Why a high EQ = inferirority

So intelligence is derived from traumatic events in early life. If "inferiority" applies to anyone, it's those who believe intelligence can be measured.

It can be measured, it is just difficult for laypeople to immediately understand the argument behind intelligence.

If you take a spacial reasoning test, a vocabulary oriented test, a math reasoning test, and a complex reaction time test (which is probably closer to direct intelligence) your scores on all of these tests will be heavily correlated.

That is what intelligence means.

The traumatic events thing just deals with how people use their intelligence. A person with a high IQ that doesn't have such events will probably be more successful in modern society. Their intelligence will probably be used to think of witty things to say and to quickly learn any ideas that someone else teaches them.

But in contrast an objective, truth oriented intelligent person will have a much more positive impact on the people around them. They will share ideas, perhaps that annoy other people, but that are true and must be respected. People will react somewhat to the exposure to these ideas, perhaps living better lives because of their awareness of them. In addition, when something goes wrong, these people are the first to be able to deal with it.

Long story short, people with high EQ are like drugs for society, they make people happier by telling them things they want to hear and weaken society as a whole by enabling comfort based inefficient behavior.

Interesting concept but a bit too absolute in your conclusions. A couple of flaws in your deduction - First, your assuming that a person with a high EQ is incapable of having a high IQ. Why would you suggest the two are incompatiable? And second, since when does a person with a low EQ immediately find themselves with a front row seat for a high IQ? You will find in life there are few absolutes. It may work for you to reason that way but, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of how most people reason, it's a very gray area to use a simple formula and say, "One size fits all."

I think your deduction may work well on the outer edges of society where you have the extreme examples. But even there, your stereotyping and I'm not a big fan of lumping an entire group of people into one label. That's like saying all doctors are social morons because they have devoted so much of their young life to this one discipline, thus they are incapable of seeing the emotional perspective in life. Not so. I have seen both extremes in this profession, so that concept just doesn't work.

A variable that has been overlooked in this argument for IQ is the fact that everybody has emotions. EQ people understand and can control their emotions and it helps bring a balance to life. IQ only people have zero or very little understanding and control over their emotions.

This is where EGO takes over.

What would you say about your own ego?

So, I have several responses to several different aspects of your argument.

Obviously you harbor some resentment towards people who are very good with other people or, as you put it, "people-mongers." harsh..
Do you have any evidence that high IQ's are found in populations that have experiences that demand real world problem solving?
My father grew up an orphan in an impoverished area of Colombia, and is one of the most intelligent human beings I know. Logical reasoning is his middle name. I, however, had a wonderful childhood, and although I was considered smart and ahead of my time, I now feel it was a crippling depression that I lived through towards the end of elementary school that gave me new perspective and a greater sense of awareness. Clairvoyance, I might say.
So I think that because of my personal experiences I can, to a point, buy your argument.

I think though, that to be successful and productive, one should have high EQ, IQ, and sense of what is right.
If someone is a genius and superb logician, they can also use this to very effectively accomplish evil goals. The same goes for people that have high EQ's, if they have bad intentions, their faculties of persuasion can be used to manipulate. So I wouldn't say that these people are inferior or BAD or WORSE people. Both parties are capable of truly terrible things if they desire them.

Also, many of the evil leaders you mentioned didn't only have high EQ's but were also master strategists and, most likely had high IQ's. I therefore think that that is NOT a winning argument.

Basically what I'm saying is that I disagree in your belief that "these people [with high EQ's] really do is slowly corrupt every organization and drive it into the ground over time." Saying that they are inferior is also...a bit disturbing to me.


I also think that although intelligence can be measured, it shouldn't be limited to "spacial reasoning test, a vocabulary oriented test, a math reasoning test, and a complex reaction time test." Very ignorant and just plain STUPID people can become very good at math, using high level words, etc. There are many types of intelligence and this can be vouched for by many experts and literature that you can research if you wish. (:

citizen, you say people with high EQ are like drugs for society, but if our world were only logic and void of emotion, there would be nearly no meaning to anything. In my opinion, that would be an unbearable existence.

I too am interested to know what you would say about your own ego.

Interesting argument, but I don't like that you added on a bias and characterized people with high EQ's as basically, societal pollutants.

May I use that term "people mongers"?

My husband and I are writing a novel (set mostly in the 1980s/1990s) about how such folks endanger the world and sensible people. If we may use the term, do we need to give you credit (in an author's note), or will you simply let one of the heroes coin the phrase and use it to explain to the rest of the heroes why their lives are all so difficult?

"high IQ people as a hole"


...lol.....


Oh the irony...


So, which group do you put yourself in out of curiousity, Citizen?

Both are equally important. A high IQ person with no EQ would can fall prey to emotional problems like depression, anxiety, etc. And when he falls to depression , his mind wouldnt work properly. Similarly a high EQ person with no IQ would not know anything. He wouldnt be able to understand anything and would be a complete fool. So it is baseless comparing both of them. Put some common sense and develop both of them. EQ is not inferior at all. A good EQ would mean you would be happier. which means a healthier mind. which means better and clearer functioning of brain which can provide a perfect environment for gaining a better IQ.

Re the terrific term "people-monger" -- my husband and I are writing a novel whose plot involves the conflict between high-EQ and high-IQ people, and we would like to borrow that term to describe high-EQ people. (In the novel, the term would be coined in the course of a conversation between two high-IQ people sharing their disenchantment with the high-EQ types who make their lives so difficult.) Would you permit the term's use for this fictional purpose?

I agree with livetowin's comments-there is no reason that someone cannot have both high IQ and high EQ. Or maybe both low IQ and EQ. I disagree with citazen's statement that "EQ doesn't allow you to do anything that other people can't. It rather denotes people skills as the one thing you can do, and thus you always use it as a crutch." Having high EQ does allow you to do something that many others cannot- because there are many individuals in the world that cannot get along with others and do not have "street smarts". Most individuals have a combination of both IQ and EQ, some are higher in one or the other and some are balanced in both. To do well in today's world we need to have both intellectual skills and emotional skills.